Predictors of Subjective Social Mobility among Middle-aged Working Single-Mothers

*This study was supported by the BK21 FOUR project of the Graduate School of Social Welfare, Yonsei University.

First Author: Kyung-Joo Seo (E-mail: mizseo@hanmail.net)

Corresponding Author: Yukyeong Oh (E-mail: ohyu429@yonsei.ac.kr)

Kyung-Joo Seo ․ Yukyeong Oh

Ph.D. Student, Yonsei University, Graduate School of Social Welfare

[Abstract]

This study explores the subjective social mobility (SSM) of middle-aged working single mothers (40–64 years old) who have experienced financial difficulties, caregiving for their children, and preparing for retirement. This study used data from 539 households that responded to the Seoul Survey of 2022 to identify factors associated with SSM. The SPSS 26.0 was used to conduct multiple regression analysis (MRA) and multinomial logistic analysis (MLA). According to the MRA, the following factors are associated with SSM: age (β=-.10, p<.05), subjective health status (β=.18, p<.001), subjective residential environment (β=.17, p<.001), loneliness in one’s family (β=.12, p<.01), satisfaction with cultural facilities (β=.16, p<.01), satisfaction with cultural programming (β=-.24, p<.001), and perception of social fairness (β=.23, p<.001). According to the MLA, the following factors were significantly associated with perceived upward social mobility compared to immobility: subjective health status (odds ratio [OR]=1.38, p<.05), white collar (OR=.15, p<.05), subjective residential environment (OR=2.12, p<.05), below 100% of median income (OR=.42, p<.05), loneliness in one’s family (OR=1.44, p<.05), community belongingness (OR=.48, p<.001), and perception of social fairness (OR=11.60, p<.001). The following factors were significantly associated with perceived downward social mobility compared to immobility: subjective health status (OR=.82, p<.05), satisfaction with cultural facilities (OR=.54, p<.01), satisfaction with cultural programming (OR=2.39, p<.001), community belongingness (OR=.68, p<.05), and positive attitude toward marginalized group policies (OR=.56, p<.05). This study has practical implications as it recognized the need for social welfare policies and programs to improve SSM among middle-aged single mothers.

Key words: Single Mothers, Middle-aged women, Subjective Social Mobility, Perceived social mobility, Seoul Survey

I. Introduction

Polarization is a major social problem facing South Korean society. Polarization in income, assets, labor, health, leisure, education, and other areas contributes to social inequality and hampers social mobility (Bukodi, Paskov, & Nolan 2020; Song et al. 2020). This leads to citizens' perception of inequality, which reduces belief in a “fair society” and the possibility of upward mobility (Edmiston 2018; Kim, 2019). This fur- ther undermines belief in a meritocratic society where anyone can climb the social ladder. In a survey on perceptions of social mobility, the proportion of South Koreans who said it was "unlikely” that “they would be able to improve their socioecono- mic status (SES) in their generation by working hard” rose from 45.6% in 2009 to 60.6% in 2021 (Statistics Korea, 2021). Thus, polarization has hindered the perception of upward mobility and deepened interest in research on subjective social mobility (SSM) (Den Berg, 2011; Fischer, 2009; Veenhoven, 2002).

In particular, the degree of income polarization among people aged 40–64 years in South Korea has recently intensified (Kim et al., 2022). In the life cycle, mid-life is a time when people are more active in work and family life than any other period while thinking more about the present and the future. Mid-life is important because it simultaneously fulfills three important social tasks: securing “economic resources” for stable family life, “support for education expenses and caregiving” for the future of one’s children, and “preparing for retirement” (Shin, 2016). SSM is a key variable in achieving these life tasks because it primarily depends on the accumulation of past opportunities, skills, and SES (Nunn et al., 2007).

As of 2018, 50% (135,362 households) of the South Korean’s 270,352 single mothers were low-income, whereas 28% (38,095 household members) of the 138,026 single fathers were low-income (Lee et al., 2021; Statistics Korea, 2021). This is more than four times the relative poverty rate of 11.1% of working-age households in South Korea (Statistics Korea, 2021). In South Korea, approximately 80% of single mothers are employed, but they tend to hold non-permanent positions and work in low-status jobs, which traps them in poverty (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2021). Additionally, the difficulties faced by middle-aged single mothers who support their families and care for their children are expected to increase (Song et al., 2019). In South Korea, a significant portion of single mothers, particularly those in their middle-aged, exhibit similar characteristics. According to a 2021 study on the status of single-parent families, 41.7% of low-income households were headed by middle-aged single parents (60% female and 40% male). In the 2000s, the three most notable cases of suicides from single-parent families (Songpa-Gu, 2014; Seongbuk-Gu, 2019; Suwon, 2022) involved middle-aged to early-old single mothers who were heads of households living in urban areas (Choi, Choi, & Oh, 2022). These cases indicate that middle-aged single mothers may be placed in a vulnerable position in terms of SES.

In reviewing prospective studies, middle-aged single mothers commonly mentioned  their unsustainable lives and challenges in social mobility. In the case of single mothers, practical, financial, and informational support from society decreases around their 40s, which creates a crisis for both parents and children (Fingerman et al., 2015; Kalmijn, 2023). Although the employment rate among middle-aged single mothers is higher than that of married middle-aged women, single mothers are more likely to experience stigma in terms of their social life, working conditions, and poverty (Chambaz, 2001; Gingerbread, 2015). Middle-aged single mothers are mostly working poor and have a low education level (less than college graduates), and their assets, consumption, income, and debt are all economically inferior to those of two-parent households; further, there is a lower possibility of asset formation and upward mobility (Lee et al., 2017).

The vulnerability of middle-aged single parents regarding social mobility has been examined previously; however, no studies have explored the factors associated with the SSM of middle-aged working single mothers. Most studies investigating the factors associated with SSM have mainly focused on all age groups and two-parent families (Jackman & Jackman, 2022; Nunn et al., 2007). Few studies have discussed single parents’ SSM, but those only emphasize that women are more vulnerable than men in terms of economic poverty and parenting stress in relation to SSM (Colton et al., 2015; Liang, Berger, & Brand, 2019). Prior research found that single mothers had the most vulnerable employment stability among all types of households and that they perceived future SES negatively (Lee, & Jang, 2021). However, the factors associated with SSM were not analyzed. Based on the limitations of prior research, this study focuses on middle-aged working single mothers’ SSM.

The potential for upward mobility among middle-aged working single mothers is important because they are likely to experience the triple whammy of economic hardship, caregiving, and anxiety about their lives after retirement. Therefore, this study aimed to uncover factors associated with the SSM of middle-aged working single mothers who support their children.

II. Literature Review

1. Characteristics of middle-aged working single mothers

As of 2021, there were 1,509,958 single-parent households in South Korea, of which approximately 75% (1,136,222 households) were headed by single mothers (Statistics Korea, 2022). This indicates that the proportion of single mothers was approximately three times that of single fathers. A study on the status of sole-parent families in 2021 found that 60.7% of household heads were in their 40s and 15.7% were in their 50s; this implies that most single-parent household heads are middle-aged (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2021). Additionally, a study on the status of sole-parent families in 2015 and 2018 (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2015, 2018) showed that middle-aged single parents are no longer a minority group and that the share of people in their 40s and 50s is expanding.

According to the Single-parent Family Support Act, a single mother is defined as a “mother-and-child family” and there are restrictions on the age of children. As their children grow into adulthood, middle-aged single mothers will eventually no longer be able to receive the benefits of single-parent support policies such as housing and finances. Hence, middle-aged single parents with adult children over the age of 19 are likely to be in a blind spot in terms of single parent family support. However, among the 11.297 million middle-aged households, 44.2% have children over 20 years old, and the highest share of household composition types among middle- aged female households is “single parent + unmarried children” (30.3%) (Statistic Korea, 2021). In addition, the household composition of all single mothers in South Korea in 2022 indicates that 20% (190,299 households) live with unmarried children under the age of 18, while 80% (780,385 households) live with unmarried children over the age of 19. These demographic traits suggest that there are a significant number of mid-life single parents living with unmarried adult children over the age of 19. In this study, middle-aged single mothers are considered female heads of households between the ages of 40 and 64 who live with unmarried children, regardless of how old their children are.

The term “mother-and-child family” refers to a family in which the mother is the head of the household. “Children” denote people under 18 years of age (when a child is in military service or attends school, the maximum eligible age is 22).

Most single mothers in South Korea are employed, are characterized as working poor with low incomes, hold temporary jobs, and experience difficulties with work-life balance due to long working hours (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2021). Based on findings from the Study on the Status of Single-Parent Families (conducted in 2021), approximately 30% were temporary or daily workers and 60% were working in small companies with nine or fewer than nine employees. Less than 10% received an average monthly income of more than 3 million won (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2021). Particularly, working poor middle-aged single mothers are more likely to become a vulnerable class due to a lack of retirement planning, job insecurity during retirement, and labor market competition (Roh & Kim, 2016). Middle-aged single mothers are also more likely to experience poor working conditions, which causes both mothers and children to experience poverty (Chambaz, 2001; Gingerbread, 2015). Moreover, middle-aged adults are a path-dependent generation in the sense that their family background, SES, social opportunities, and wealth accumulation are largely determined by their previous life experiences (Shin, 2016). A prolonged recession, sluggish job market, and rising housing costs have delayed the independence of adult children in South Korea, where middle-aged single mothers often carry the burden of caring for their adult children (Kim, 2019). Thus, this study aimed to analyze SSM among middle-aged working single mothers who are likely to face various difficulties.

2. Subjective social mobility (SSM)

Social mobility refers to a “change in a person’s socioeconomic situation, either in relation to their parents or throughout their lifetime” (OECD, 2023). There are several aspects to the definition of social mobility as a concept (Nunn et al., 2007). Economists tend to measure social mobility in terms of income (Blanden, Gregg, & MacMillan, 2006), whereas sociologists focus on social mobility in terms of occupational status (Erikson & Goldthorpe, 2002). However, objective indicators of social mobility such as income, occupation, education level, and housing have limitations in explaining an individual’s perception of social mobility (Alesina & Angeletos, 2005). Objective social mobility (OSM) and SSM are highly correlated with each other, but depending on the situation and context, the relationship can be positive or negative (Bar-haim, 2018; Schalembier, 2015). In other words, the link between OSM and SSM is inconsistent. Bar-haim (2018) and Schalembier (2015) explained that SSM motivates and determines human social behavior; even if OSM is low, strong-willed people perceive and act positively about the future. In this context, it is vital to move beyond the investigation of objective class factors such as income, assets, housing, and education (Lee, 2018; Yoon & Kim, 2008) to the SSM, which reflects the perceptions (Choi, 2022).

SSM has a greater impact on psychological and social behavior than objectively measured social mobility (Macleod et al., 2005). The concept of SSM is commonly defined as people’s personal belief that they have a greater probability of reaching a higher social class in the future, especially in comparison to their current position (Den Berg, 2011; Fischer, 2009; Kelley & Kelley, 2009). SSM is a combination of past experiences; reference and comparison groups; and individuals’ perceived occupational status, education, and income (Lee, Kim, & Choi, 2016). Particularly, the perception of the class one belongs to in the future or in the next generation can inform how individuals view society and how they perceive their lives in the future (Veenhoven, 2002). Identifying factors associated with SSM is necessary to expand understanding of classes and predict future social structures (Lee, 2018).

Several studies have recognized single-parent families as a vulnerable demographic characteristic with regard to SSM (Biblarz & Raftery, 1993; Gregg, Macmillan, & Vittori, 2015; Nunn et al, 2007). Family breakdown is one of the most powerful factors in determining both parents' and children's life chances (Biblaez & Raftery, 1993; Nunn et al., 2007). Research indicates that two-parent families tend to do better on a range of outcomes on OSM and SSM in parents and children generations (Biblarz & Raftery, 1993; Margo et al., 2006). In particular, women from working-class backgrounds are more likely to become single mothers than women from middle-class backgrounds, and the experience of lone motherhood is associated with SSM (Rowlingson & McKay, 2005). In the case of middle-aged single mothers, practical, financial, and informational support from society decreases around the age of 40, creating a crisis such as old-life poverty and children's care burden (Fingerman et al., 2015; Kalmijn, 2023). However, there was a lack of research on middle-aged working single mothers in South Korea (Choi & Son, 2022). For that, there remains a dearth of studies that empirically analyze the factors associated with the SSM of middle-aged single mothers.

3. Factors associated with Subjective social mobility (SSM)

Few studies on SSM have focused exclusively on middle-aged or single-parent homes. Thus, this study reviewed the literature on SSM across household characteristics and age groups. According to the literature review, the factors associated with SSM can be broadly categorized into five areas: personal, household, social capital, cultural capital, and societal perceptions.

First, individual characteristics such as age, education, labor, income, and health status affect middle-aged’s SSM (Cho, 2016; Jackman & Jackman, 2022; Lee, Kim, & Choi, 2016; Shin, 2016). Lee et al. (2016) suggested that age is a critical factor in SSM. They found that intergenerational upward mobility was lowest when parents were in their mid-to-late 40s and when their children were preparing for college. The middle-aged generation reported more negative perceptions of the possibility of upward mobility because they considered their present situation (work and income), future (retirement), and children’s support (educational expenses) at the same time (Shin, 2016). Higher levels of education (Haveman & Smeeding, 2006) and income (Jackman & Jackman, 2022; Kelley & Kelley, 2009) are associated with greater expectations of social mobility. Cho (2006) found income, education, and occupation to have static effects on SSM. However, as the perception of upward mobility focuses on future situations, people who already have a high social mobility (education and income) are likely to have lower expectations of it (Lee & Yoon, 2006; Lee, 2018). Health status is highly correlated with the likelihood of upward mobility; the lower one’s subjective health status, the more pessimistic one is about the chances of upward mobility (Nunn et al, 2007; Präg & Gugushvili, 2021).

Second, household characteristics (eg. divorce, low income, household assets, etc.) are factors associated with SSM (Nunn et al., 2007). Family factors, such as family breakdown and low family income, have a stronger relationship with the likelihood of negative SSM, which in turn affects both OSM and SSM in the next generation (Gregg, Macmillan, & Vittori, 2015; Nunn et al, 2007). Home environment and family structure are closely linked to the likelihood of subjective upward mobility (Margo et al., 2006; Weitoft et al., 2004). Single parents are more likely to experience a lack of economic resources, which causes socioeconomic disadvantages and affects SSM (Weitoft et al., 2004). Homeownership and housing environment strengthens a family’s human capital development in the long term and fosters positive attitudes (Page-Adams & Sherraden, 1997; Scalon & Page-Adams, 2001); this increases future prospects and optimism about upward mobility. A community living environment is associated with subjective social class and it reduces depression. (Zhang & We, 2021). Lee’s (2018) study on young adults’ SSM revealed that living at home and having a high household income were associated with positive SSM.

Social capital refers to the level of contact one has with one’s family and friends, the level of cohesion in the network, and leisure or reciprocal relationships that strengthen the network (Lin, 2017). Taking family as a social capital into account, positive support and ties from family strengthen social networks and provide future expectations and motivation (Litwin & Sciovitz-Ezra, 2010). In contrast, excessively strong family embeddedness (Granover, 1985) can actually weaken class mobility by blocking interaction with others and limiting external information (Cote, 2019; Podolny & Baron, 1997). Loneliness within the family may have a negative impact on an individual's psychology, but it can also be connected to the desire to become independent from the family (Lenette & Ingamells, 2014). Based on Grano- vetter’s (1973) theory of “Weak Ties” turns out that a strong bond with family actually weakens social mobility by blocking interactions with others and limiting information obtained from the outside (Cote, 2019). Additionally, core and balanced leisure for single parents facilitates flexibility and adaptive skills, which help them to cope with challenging situations, break free from negative stereotypes, and think positively about the future (Hornberger et al., 2010). Despite this, single-parent families face more financial and time constraints than two-parent homes and have fewer opportunities to participate in family leisure and cultural programs (Cooney & Mortimer, 1999).

Cultural capital is defined as “cultural signals (attitudes, preferences, knowledge, and behaviors” (Lamont & Lareau, 1988). According to the British Survey research, the experience of using cultural facilities and programs (such as museums/art galleri- es, theater/dance/classical performances, sites of historic interest, and libraries) helps enrich socialization and influences positive intergenerational social mobility (Scherger & Savage, 2010). In particular, experience with these cultural activities had a marked effect on upward mobility prospects for the working and middle classes, even when controlling for respondents' educational attainment (Divine, 2004). Although studies related to cultural capital and SSM are discussed mainly on the efforts of parents for their children's upward mobility, it can be extrapolated to factors that closely relate to parents. In terms of cultural capital, a wide range of cultural activities, cultural knowledge, and cultural enjoyment can facilitate upward social mobility from low-income families (DiMaggio, 1982). Cultural capital interacts with OSM to reproduce social inequality (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990), resulting in sociocultural exclusion (Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999). Aschaffenburg & Maas (1997) found that experiences and satisfaction with the cultural environment were associated with SSM. Overall, social and cultural factors are important for SSM.

Finally, SSM entails an individual’s future perception of their place in society. As such, the concept is tied to perceptions of society such as social fairness, attitude toward the socially disadvantaged, and community belongingness (Hammer, Baumeister,  & Vohs, 2007; Kim, 2020; Lee, 2017; Lee, 2018). Kim (2020), Lee (2017), and Lee (2018), who analyzed the 2018 Seoul Survey, found that perceived fairness is positiv- ely linked to SSM. In the context of downward mobility, a lack of social opportunities, a sense of structural loss, and economic decline lead to hostility toward socially vuln- erable people (Hammer, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2007). When faced with difficult socio- economic situations, individuals tend to blame external groups to attain psychological relief and express frustration through negative perceptions of socially disadvantaged groups (Scapegoat Theory: Hammer, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2007; Semyonov et al., 2006 ). Belonging is particularly motivating for people from disadvantaged backgrounds as it makes them feel that there are people who will support their efforts (Shnabel, et al., 2013). However, when a sense of belonging is triggered by negative emotions in a negative environment, stigmatizing or exclusionary behaviors and negative percept- ions of SSM may emerge (Marzi, 2018).

Ⅲ. Methods

1. Research Model

This study aimed to examine factors associated with SSM among middle-aged working single mothers (40–64 years old) living with their unmarried children without considering age. Based on the previous discussion of SSM, this study explored the relationship between five major factors (personal, household, social capital, cultural capital, and perception of society) and SSM. To examine the research model, multiple regression analysis (MRA) was performed to identify the factors associated with SSM. In addition, multinomial logistic analysis (MLA) was conducted to compare factors associated with the perceptions of upward and downward mobility compared to immobility (see Figure 1).

Personal factor	Age
	Education level
	Income level
	Subjective health status		Subjective Social Mobility
	Occupation		<Model 1> Multiple regression analysis - much worse=1 to much better=5 <Model 2> Multinomial logistic analysis - Upward - Downward (ref.= immobile)
	Status of employment
Household factor	Home ownership
	Subjective residential environment
	Median income status
Social Capital factor	Loneliness in one’s family
	Reciprocity
	Satisfaction with leisure time
Cultural Capital factor	Satisfaction with cultural facilities
	Satisfaction with cultural programming
Perception of society factor	Community belongingness
	Perception of social fairness
	Positive attitude toward marginalized group policies

<Figure 1> A Research Model for analysis

2. Data for analysis

This study used data from the Seoul Survey of 2022; it was conducted by the Seoul Research Institute. The survey data contain information on individual and household characteristics, socioeconomic conditions, the workplace environment, housing, culture and leisure, education, and social perceptions. These data are highly appropriate for this study because they provide the key variables of the study’s focus: SSM, personal factors, household factors, social capital factors, cultural capital factors, and one’s perception of society. The Seoul Survey of 2022 was designed to obtain data on each sampling unit of respondents residing in equal buildings and housing types. Thus, the samples were selected using a stratified two-stage cluster sampling method, ensuring similarity to the population of Seoul’s residents  (City of Seoul, 2022). The survey was carried out from September 15 to October 31, 2022. The sample consists of 20,000 households, with 39,340 household members aged 15 years and older living in Seoul. This study used data from 539 households.

The data extraction process took place as follows: (1) The total number of single- parent households in the Seoul Survey was 4,189, and this study extracted single- mother households, which were 74.1% (n=3,104). (2) The study examined related variables by combining household member data with household head data, ensuring there were no oversights or discrepancies. (3) For the final analysis, the study included 539 household members who were middle-aged working single mothers (40– 64 years old) living with their unmarried children without considering the children’s age. The analytic sample of this study represents 1.4% of the total household mem- bers surveyed (n=39,340), but among the single mothers (n=3,104), it was 17.4%.

This study assessed the representativeness of this analytical sample by comparing it with the characteristics of middle-aged working single mothers in the South Korean study on the status of sole-parent families in 2022. According to the study on the status of sole-parent families, divorced, widowed, and separated single parents accounted for 3,159 of the total respondents (3,300 households), and middle-aged working single mothers accounted for 62.1% (n=1,302) of all single mothers (n=2,094).

The demographic characteristics of the middle-aged working single mothers sample from the ‘Seoul Survey data’ used in this study and the middle-aged working single mothers sample from the ‘Study on the status of sole-parent families’ were similar. (1) Age characteristics are as follows. In the study on the status of sole-parent families, 16.9% (n=220) of middle-aged working single mothers were in their 40s (n=220) and 83.1% (n=1,082) were in their 50s. In the analysis sample of this study, 14.5% were in their 40s and 85.5% were between the ages of 50 and 64. (2) In terms of educational level, according to the study on the status of sole-parent families, 58.1% (n=756) had a below high school graduate, and 41.9% (n=546) had a college graduate or higher. This was similar to the sample of this study (66.2% below high school graduate, 33.8% college graduate or higher). (3) The status of employment characteristics, in a study on the status of sole-parent families, 49.2% (n=640) were regular workers and 34.4% (n=449) were temporary/daily workers,  similar to the sample in this study (42.5% regular workers, 21.2% temporary/daily workers). (4) Occupation in a study on the status of sole-parent families showed that 62.4% (n=812) were in ‘service and sales’ and 22% (n=287) were in ‘white-collar’ occupations. The majority of occupations in this study sample were also in‘service and sales (72.0%).’(5) In terms of median income status, approximately 33.0% of middle-aged working single mothers in a study on the status of sole-parent families were at or below 100% of the median income, which was similar to the sample in this study (29.9%).

Overall, both surveys of middle-aged working single mothers show similar SES demographic characteristics. However, the study on the status of sole-parent families only sampled single parents with children under the age of 18. For that, there are limitations in comparing it with the sample of this study, which includes unmarried children without considering age.

3. Variables and measurements

The dependent variable was SSM; it was measured using the following survey question: “How high or low do you think is the possibility that your socioeconomic status will increase in our society?”

The independent variables comprised the following five factors: (1) personal, (2) household, (3) social capital, (4) cultural capital, and (5) one’s perception of society. Personal factors include age, education level, income level, subjective health status, occupation, and status of employment. Household factors include home ownership, subjective residential environment, and median income status. Social capital factors include loneliness toward family (Shin, et al., 2023), reciprocity (Lee & Jeong, 2021), and satisfaction with leisure time (Yu & Kim, 2021). Cultural capital includes satisfaction with cultural facilities and satisfaction with cultural programming. Perception of society factors include community belongingness (Kang, Lee, & Koo, 2023), perception of social fairness (Cho, 2021), and positive attitudes toward marginalized group policies (Jeong, Kim, & Jang, 2014). No multicollinearity issues were found when checking variance inflation factors (VIFs) or tolerance between the independent variables. <Table 1> lists these variables and their measurements.

<Table 1> Variables and measurements

Variable		Measurement
Subjective Social Mobility (SSM)		1) Multiple regression analysis question of perceived social mobility; 1=much worse, 2=somewhat worse, 3=about the same, 4=somewhat better, 5=much better
		2) Multinomial logistic analysis recorded on a nominal scale as below: 3 points= 0 (immobility) 4~5 points= 1 (subjective upward mobility) 1~2 points= -1 (subjective downward mobility)
Personal factor	Age	2022 – birth year
	Education level	1=college graduate or higher 0=below high school graduate
	Income level (KRW)	Average monthly personal income: 1=less than 1.5 million ∼ 4=more than 4.5 million
	Subjective health status	0=low ∼ 10=high
	Occupation	1=service and sales, 2=white-collar, 3=blue-collar. 4=administrative or manager
	Status of employment	1=full-time, 2=temporary/1 day / special types, 3=self-employed
Household factor	Home ownership	0=don’t have=, 1=have
	Subjective residential environment	How satisfied are you with your living conditions considering all the household members (water, sewage, housing, electricity, communications, transport, green spaces, etc.)? 1=very dissatisfied=1 ~ 5=very satisfied
	Median income status	0=above 100%, 1=below 100% =1
Social Capital factor	Loneliness in one’s family	How lonely do you usually feel in your family? 1=not at all=1 ∼ 5=very much
	Reciprocity	Four questions about whether the respondent has someone (e.g., a relative, a neighbor, a colleague, etc.) to ask for help in the following situations: illness, financial difficulties, feeling depressed, and needing help for family care 0=none, 1=yes (use the sum) Cronbach’s [eqn: a]: .549.
	Satisfaction with leisure time	How satisfied are you with your leisure life? 1=very dissatisfied ∼ 5=very satisfied
Cultural Capital factor	Satisfaction with cultural facilities	How satisfied are you with overall cultural facilities (museums/art galleries, public libraries, gardens, theaters, etc.)? 1=low ∼ 5=high
	Satisfaction with cultural programming	How satisfied are you with overall cultural programs (museums/art galleries, theater/watch performances, and sites of historic interest, etc.)? 1=low ∼ 5=high
Perception of society factor	Community belongingness	Four questions about one’s community and neighborhood: connections with the neighborhood, conversations about the neighborhood, degree of helping in the community, participation in community events. 1=not at all ∼ 5=very much (use the average) Cronbach’s [eqn: a]: .858.
	Perception of social fairness	Ten questions about social fairness and equality of opportunity: education, employment, taxation and payment, welfare benefits, balanced regional development, law enforcement, political activity, gender equality, socioeconomic distribution structure, military service duty 1=unfair at all ∼ 5=very fair (use the average) Cronbach’s [eqn: a]: .863.
	Positive attitudes toward marginalized group policies	Four questions on positive attitudes towards policies for the disabled, the poor, the elderly and women 1=disagree ∼ 5=strongly agree (use the average) Cronbach’s [eqn: a]: .613.

4. Analysis method

SPSS 26.0 was used to derive descriptive statistics on the variables and to examine the research models. First, descriptive analyses and analysis of variance (t-test, ANOVA) were performed to investigate the respondents’ sociodemographic traits. Second, MRA was conducted to identify factors related to SSM. Finally, to analyze the differences in the associated factors of perceived upward social mobility and downward mobility, MLA was carried out using immobility as a reference.

IV. Findings and Results

1. Descriptive statistics of study participants

<Table 2> summarizes the descriptive characteristics of study participants. The middle-aged working single mothers were predominantly aged 50–64 (85.5%) and 66.2% had below high school graduate. Most participants (86.3%) lived with their children who were over the age of 18. Regarding home ownership, 45.3% of the participants owned a home, whereas 54.7% did not. Households with incomes of more than 3 million won and less than 4.5 million won comprised the highest percentage at 36.9%. Approximately 30% of households earned less than 100% of their median income. Regarding the participants’ monthly personal incomes, 45.8% earned 1.5 million won and less than 3 million won, followed by 3 million won and less than 4.5 million won (37.7%), and 5.4% earned less than 1.5 million won. Service and sales workers accounted for the largest portion at 72%. As for the status of employment, 42.5% were full-time workers, 36% were self-employed, and 21.5% were temporary or one-day or special types of employment workers.

Chi-square analysis was used to examine differences in the demographic characteristics among those who perceived that they had upward mobility, immobility, and downward mobility. As a result, there were significant differences in personal income (Χ²=19.327, p<.01), occupation (Χ²=14.401, p<.05), and status of employment (Χ²=15.487, p<.01). ANOVA results showed that SSM mean values were higher for those in their 40s than for those in their 50s. For the house price sales index, those in the 1st  had significantly higher mean SSMs than those in the 2nd  and the 4th places. In comparing upward and downward subjective social mobility, when personal income exceeded 3 million won, the rate of perceived upward mobility was higher than downward mobility. As for occupational characteristics, only the service and sales group had a higher rate of perceived upward mobility (n=111, 82.2%) compared to downward mobility (n=101, 67.3%). The percentage of self-employed workers was higher in the group that perceived upward mobility (n=64, 47.4) versus those with perceived downward mobility (n=42, 28%). Also, in the case of full-time (n=76, 50.7%) or temporary workers (n=32, 21.3%), the group with perceived downward mobility was larger than the group with perceived upward mobility.

<Table 2> Descriptive characteristics of the study participants                                                                   (n=539)

Variable	Categories	total (%)	SSM		t / F	p	downward (n=150)		immobile (n=254)		upward (n=135)		Χ²	p
			M	SE			n	%	n	%	n	%
Age M=55.37, SD=5.59	40∼49 years a	78(14.5)	3.17	.95	2.329* a > b	.200	17	11.3	34	13.4	27	20.0	4.769	.092
	50∼64 years b	461(85.5)	2.92	.85			133	88.7	220	86.6	108	80.0
Education level	below high school graduate	357(66.2)	3.00	.88	-1.773	.780	95	63.3	169	66.5	93	68.9	1.000	.606
	college graduate or higher	182(33.8)	2.86	.86			55	36.7	85	33.5	42	31.1
Age of youngest child M=26.10, SD=5.91	<= 18[eqn: {}^{a}]	74(13.8)	3.15	.90	3.490* a > b	.031	14	18.9	37	50.0	23	31.1	9.494	.50
	19 ~ 24 years[eqn: {}^{b}]	134(24.9)	2.82	.91			49	36.6	53	39.6	32	23.9
	>= 25 years[eqn: {}^{c}]	331(61.4)	2.97	.84			87	26.3	164	49.5	80	24.2
Home ownership	have	244(45.3)	3.02	.89	.669	.140	69	46.0	104	40.9	71	52.6	4.872	.088
	don’t have	295(54.7)	2.91	.85			81	54.0	150	59.1	64	47.4
Resident Area1)	1st a	104(19.3)	3.13	.87	3.574** a > b, d	.007	26	17.3	42	16.5	36	26.7	48.986***	<.001
	2nd b	96(17.8)	2.82	.73			25	16.7	58	22.8	13	9.6
	3rd c	132(24.5)	2.89	1.05			48	32.0	44	17.3	40	29.6
	4th d	106(19.7)	2.82	.63			26	17.3	70	27.6	10	7.4
	5th e	101(18.7)	3.13	.91			25	16.7	40	15.7	36	26.7

* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

1) House Price Sales Index (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, 2023): In 2018, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport used this data to estimate the actual sale price of housing in 25 districts of Seoul, and it is index for determining how the housing market has evolved. This study displayed 25 rankings reclassified into five quintiles. This means that the higher the ranking, the higher the house price. The regions are as follows: (1) Seocho, Yongsan, Gangnam, Jongno, Dongjak; (2) Gwangjin, Yangcheon, Seongdong, Guro, Gangdong-gu; (3) Jungnang, Gangbuk, Mapo, Songpa, Gwanak; (4) Gangseo, Geumcheon, Eunpyeong, Yeongdeungpo, Dongdaemun; (5) Seodaemun, Jung-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Dobong, and Nowon.

Variable	Categories	total (%)	SSM		t / F	p	downward (n=150)		immobile (n=254)		upward (n=135)		Χ²	p
			M	SE			n	%	n	%	n	%
Median income status	> 100%	3778(70.1)	2.91	.82	-.739	.460	106	70.7	171	67.3	101	74.8	2.391	.303
	<= 100%	161(29.9)	2.97	.89			44	29.3	83	32.7	34	25.2
Household income (KRW)	l.5 million ∼ < 3 million	53(9.8)	2.83	.78	.749	.560	17	11.3	26	10.2	10	7.4	4.769	.782
	3 million ∼ < 4.5 million	199(36.9)	2.98	.89			52	34.7	98	38.6	49	36.3
	4.5 million ∼ < 6 million	154(28.6)	3.01	.86			42	28.0	67	26.4	45	33.3
	6 million ∼ < 7.5 million	96(17.8)	2.94	.89			27	18.0	44	17.3	25	18.5
	>= 7.5 million	37(6.9)	2.81	.85			12	8.0	19	7.5	6	4.4
Personal income (KRW)	< 1.5 million a	29(5.4)	2.83	.76	3.654* b < c	.013	8	5.30	18	7.1	3	2.2	19.327**	.004
	1.5 million ∼ < 3 million b	247(45.8)	2.84	.80			80	53.3	121	47.6	46	34.1
	3 million ∼ < 4.5 million c	203(37.7)	3.06	.90			50	33.3	89	35.0	64	47.4
	>= 4. 5 million d	60(11.1)	3.13	1.03			12	8.0	26	10.2	22	16.3
Occupation	service and sales	388(72.0)	3.02	.88	2.360	.071	101	67.3	176	69.3	111	82.2	14.401*	.025
	white-collar	67(12.4)	2.82	.74			17	11.3	41	16.1	9	6.7
	blue-collar	53(9.8)	2.83	.85			20	13.3	23	9.1	10	7.4
	administrative or professional	31(5.8)	2.71	.94			12	8.0	14	5.5	5	3.7
Status of employment	full-time a	229(42.5)	2.86	.94	5.127** a, b < c	.006	76	50.7	102	40.2	51	37.8	15.487**	.004
	temporary /one day / special types of employed b	116(21.5)	2.89	.72			32	21.3	64	25.2	20	14.8
	self-employed c	194(36.0)	3.11	.85			42	28.0	88	45.3	64	47.4

* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

2. Descriptive statistics of the major variables

<Table 3> outlines the descriptive characteristics of the dependent variable, SSM, and the independent variables. As a result of the response to the dependent variable, SSM, the average was 3.09 on a 5-point scale. As a result of ANOVA, the SSM level had a significant difference between perceived upward mobility, immobility, and downward mobility (p<.001, F=2853.5). In the case of perceived upward mobility (M=4.1, SD=0.3), the SSM level was the highest; perceived downward mobility (M=1.8, SD=0.4) had the lowest level of SSM. On the 10-point scale, the average subjective health status was 7.1 (SD=1.3). Subjective health status significantly differed between perceived upward mobility, immobility, and downward mobility (p<.001, F=29.142). The average subjective health status was highest for those with perceived upward mobility. On the 5-point scale, the average satisfaction of residential environment was 3.9 (SD=.7), As for social capital factors, the average loneliness in one’s family was 2.8 (SD=.9), the average reciprocity was 2.8 (SD=.8), and the average satisfaction with leisure time was 3.2 (SD=.8). For cultural capital factors on the 5-point scale, the average satisfaction with cultural facilities was 3.6 (SD=.8). The average satisfaction with cultural programming was 3.4 (SD=.8). Finally, for perception of society factors on the 5-point scale, the average community belongingness was 2.6 (SD=.8), the average perception of social fairness was 3.1 (SD=.6), and the average positive attitude toward marginalized group policies was 3.2 (SD=.6). Skewness and kurtosis were checked to confirm the normality of the major variables. The skewness was –0.89 ∼ 0.30, which is less than the absolute value of three, and the kurtosis was -0.63 ∼ 0.83, which is less than the absolute value of 10. There were no regularity issues (Kline, 2010).

<Table 3> Descriptive characteristics of the major variables                        (n=539)

Variable	Total		downward[eqn: {}^{a}] (n=150)		immobile[eqn: {}^{b}] (n=254)		upward[eqn: {}^{c}] (n=135)		Ｆ	Min	Max	Skew	Kurt
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Subjective social mobility	3.0	0.9	1.8	0.4	3.0	0.0	4.1	0.3	2853.547*** a < b < c	1	5	-.09	.21
Subjective health status	7.1	1.3	6.7	1.4	7.0	1.2	7.8	1.2	29.142*** a < b < c	2	10	-.89	.83
Subjective Residential environment	3.9	0.7	3.7	0.7	3.9	0.6	4.4	0.7	46.755*** a < b < c	1	5	-.35	.47
Loneliness in one’s family	2.8	0.9	2.6	0.9	2.8	1.0	3.0	0.9	7.577*** a < c	1	5	.06	-.77
Reciprocity (n=450)	2.8	0.8	2.7	0.8	2.7	0.8	2.9	0.6	3.269* a < c	0	4	-.69	.61
Satisfaction with leisure time	3.2	0.8	3.0	0.8	3.2	0.8	3.3	0.7	4.536* a < c	1	5	-.42	.41
Satisfaction with cultural facilities	3.6	0.8	3.4	0.9	3.7	0.7	3.7	0.7	6.286** a < c	1	5	-.65	.52
Satisfaction with cultural programming	3.4	0.8	3.5	0.9	3.4	0.8	3.4	0.7	.188	1	5	-.26	.15
Community belongingness	2.6	0.8	2.4	0.7	2.7	0.8	2.4	0.9	11.172*** b > c, b> a	1	5	.30	-.63
Perception of social fairness	3.1	0.6	2.9	0.6	3.1	0.6	3.5	0.4	45.237*** a < b < c	1	5	-.53	.15
Positive attitude toward marginalized group policies	3.2	0.6	3.0	0.6	3.2	0.6	3.3	0.5	12.328*** a < c	1	5	-.35	.21

* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

3. Research model analysis

The findings of the MRA are presented in <Table 4>. The model showed a significant fit (F=10.519; p<.001) and its explanatory power was 29.8%. According to the MRA, in terms of personal factors, age (β=-.10, p<.05) was negatively associated with SSM. Subjective health status (β=.18, p<.001) was positively associated with SSM. In terms of household factors, satisfaction with residential environment was positively associated with subjective social mobility (β=.17, p<.001). Next in a social capital, loneliness in one’s family was positively (β=.12, p<.01) associated with SSM. As for cultural capital factors, satisfaction with cultural facilities was positively (β=.16, p<.01) associated with SSM; satisfaction with cultural programming (β=-.24, p<.001) was negatively associated with it. Finally, the perception of social fairness (β=.23, p<.001) was positively associated with SSM.

<Table 4> MRA result: subjective social mobility                                   (n=539)

Variables		B	S.E	β	t	p
Personal	Age	-.02	.01	-.10	-2.12*	.035
	Education level (college grad. or higher=1)	-.08	.09	-.04	-.89	.377
	Income level	.09	.06	.08	1.50	.134
	Subjective health status	.12	.03	.18	4.08***	<.001
	Service or sales (not=0)	-.12	.13	-.06	-.95	.345
	white collar (not=0)	-.18	.17	-.07	-1.07	.286
	blue collar (not=0)	-.16	.21	-.04	-.77	.439
	Temporary or 1 day (not=0)	-.03	.10	-.01	-.28	.778
	self-employed (not=0)	.16	.09	.09	1.67+	.095
Household	Home ownership (have=1)	.07	.07	.04	1.0	.319
	Subjective residential environment	.23	.06	.17	3.66***	<.001
	Median income status (below 100%=1)	-.08	.08	-.04	-.99	.322
Social Capital	Loneliness in one’s family	.11	.04	.12	2.75 **	.006
	Reciprocity	.08	.05	.07	1.58	.116
	Satisfaction with leisure time	.05	.05	.04	.99	.324
Cultural Capital	Satisfaction with cultural facilities	.20	.06	.16	3.14**	.002
	Satisfaction with cultural programming	-.27	.06	-.24	-4.70***	<.001
Perception of society	Community belongingness	-.07	.05	-.06	-1.46	.145
	Perception of social fairness	.37	.07	.23	4.96***	<.001
	Positive attitude toward marginalized group policies	.08	.07	.05	1.17	.244
Constant		.33	.60		.55	.583
F=10.519***, R2 =0.329, Adj. R2=0.298

+p<.01, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

The findings of the MLA are presented in <Table 5>. The model showed a significant fit (χ²=254.020, p<.001). Nagelkerke R2 is was 49.1%.

The probability of perceived upward social mobility, compared to immobility, increased by 38% when subjective health status improved (OR=1.38, p<.05), reduced by 85%, they belonged to white-collar jobs (OR=.15, p<.05), increased by 112% when subjective residential environments were higher (OR= 2.12, p<.05), fell by 58% when household income was less than 100% of median income (OR=.42, p<.05), increased by 44% when loneliness toward family was more (OR=1.44, p<.05), reduced by 52% when community belongingness was better (OR=.48, p<.001), became about 11.6 times when social fairness was perceived more positively (OR=11.60, p<.001).

The probability of perceived downward social mobility, compared to immobility, reduced by about 18% when subjective health status was better (OR=.82, p<.05), reduced by about 46% when satisfaction with cultural facilities was better (OR=.54, p<.01), became about 2.4 times greater when satisfaction with cultural programs was better (OR=2.39, p<.001), reduced by 32% when community belongingness was better (OR=.68, p<.05), reduced by 44% when positive attitude toward marginalized group policies were more (OR=.56, p<.05).

<Table 5> MLA result: subjective social mobility                                   (n=539)

Independent variables		downward (n=150)			upward (n=135)
		(ref.= immobile, n=254)
		B	p	OR	B	p	OR
Personal	Age	.00	.975	1.0	-.02	.617	.98
	Education level	.23	.480	1.26	.49	.203	1.63
	Income level	-.20	.323	.82	.31	.208	1.36
	Subjective health status	-.20*	.044	.82	.33*	.012	1.38
	Service or sales (not=0)	-.26	.536	.77	-.52	.357	.60
	white collar (not=0)	-1.10+	.066	.33	-1.87*	.018	.15
	blue collar (not=0)	-.32	.638	.72	-1.21	.209	.30
	Temporary or 1 day (not=0)	-.34	.339	.71	-.81+	.074	.45
	self-employed (not=0)	-.57+	.093	.57	-.33	.418	.72
Household	Home ownership (have=1)	.34	.191	1.41	.43	.162	1.54
	Subjective residential environment	-.30	.178	.75	.75*	.012	2.12
	Median income status (above 100%=0)	-.20	.494	.82	-.87*	.019	.42
Social Capital	Loneliness in one’s family	-.15	.331	.87	.37*	.039	1.44
	Reciprocity	.04	.818	1.04	.18	.380	1.20
	Satisfaction with leisure time	-.08	.636	.92	.18	.423	1.20
Cultural Capital	Satisfaction with cultural facilities	-.61**	.007	.54	.25	.367	1.28
	Satisfaction with cultural programming	.87***	<.001	2.39	-.09	.730	.92
Perception of society	Community belongingness	-.39*	.039	.68	-.73***	<.001	.48
	Perception of social fairness	.06	.818	1.07	2.45***	<.001	11.60
	Positive attitude toward marginalized group policies	-.59*	.014	.56	-.37	.237	.69
Constant		5.07	.017		-13.03	<.001
[eqn: x ^{2}]		254.020***
Nagelkerke R2		0.491

+ p<.1, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

V. Discussion and Suggestions

This study aimed to identify factors associated with the SSM of middle-aged working single mothers (40–64 years old) living with their unmarried children. This study analyzed the Seoul Survey of 2022, to which 539 single mothers responded. Considering previous research, this study analyzed the variables associated with SSM in five categories: personal, household, social capital, cultural capital, and perceptions of society.

The summary of the overall results is as follows. First, 66.2% of the middle-aged single mothers in this study had a lower education level. Approximately 30% of households earned less than 100% of their median income. More than a quarter were in the low-income bracket, and 54.7% did not have a home and lived in a rental. 51.2% of single mothers earn less than 3 million won for their monthly income. As for employment status, 42.5% of the respondents were full-time workers, 36.0% were self-employed, and 21.5% were temporary workers. This means that the majority were working as breadwinners in non-professional, non-skilled service or sales jobs. Their personal and household economic and social traits are consistent with their vulnerability to social mobility in middle-age (Margo et al., 2006; Shin, 2016; Tach, 2015; Weitoft et al., 2004). Thus, middle-aged working single mothers exhibit the demographic characteristics of a vulnerable group requiring social work intervention.

Second, MRA was conducted to identify factors associated with SSM. This is consistent with past findings showing that as people age (β= -.10, p<.05), they become more pessimistic about the future (Fingerman et al., 2015; Kalmijn, 2023). Positive subjective health (β=.18, p<.001) are associated with a positive perception of SSM (Nunn et al., 2007; Präg & Gugushvili, 2021). As for household factors, the residential environment is positively associated with SSM (β=.17, p<.001), which is similar to previous results (Scalon & Page-Adams, 2001). In this study, the sense of loneliness in one's family and SSM were positively associated with it (β=.12, p<.01), this means that feeling lonely within the family increases SSM. Granovetter's theory of weak ties (1973), highlights that while positive family support and strong bonds bolster social networks and offer expectations and motivation for the future, excessive reliance on family connections can weaken SSM by obstructing interactions with others. Therefore, it's important to have the right level of family connections. Satisfaction with cultural facilities was positively related to SSM (β=.16, p<.01). This supports previous research showing that cultural activities are associated with positive SSM (Bandura, 1997). In contrast, satisfaction with cultural programming (β=-.24, p<.001) was negatively associated with it. The data for the Seoul Survey of 2022 were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic when Seoul closed its public cultural institutions and offered limited cultural programming (Bae & Shin, 2021). The respondents had limited cultural experiences (Bae & Shin, 2021), which may have led to different outcomes compared to past studies. Hence, the results for satisfaction with cultural programming must be interpreted carefully. Lastly, the perception of social fairness (β=.23, p<.001) were positively associated with SSM. These findings support the research that positive social perceptions are associated with SSM (Kim, 2020; Lee, 2018). To summarize the results of the MRA, factors associated with SSM were age, health, residential environment, cultural capital, and perception of social fairness.

Third, MLA was conducted to compare the factors associated with the perceptions of upward and downward social mobility using immobility as the reference group. Among personal and household factors, the meaningful results are as follows. Subjective health status was associated with both downward (OR=.82, p<.05) and upward (OR=1.38, p<.05), which means that health is a crucial variable in promoting SSM (Jackman & Jackman, 2022; Nunn et al., 2007). For the occupation, the white-collar group was pessimistic about upward mobility compared to other occupation types (OR=.15, p<.05). This is consistent with previous research showing that urban workers, even if they are white collar, are often lower-class workers with low wages, and this is discouraging about SSM (Jo, 2006). Subjective residential environment (OR=2.12, p<.05) was associated with perceived upward mobility compared to immobility. This support that a home environment strengthens a family's capital development over the long term and fosters positive attitudes (Lee, 2018; Page-Adams & Sherraden, 1997; Scalon & Page-Adams, 2001). Regarding the median income level, upward mobility was pessimistic when the median income was below 100% (OR=.42, p<.05). This is consistent with previous research finding that higher household income status is associated with an upward SSM (Kelley & Kelley, 2009).

Lastly, the main results of the MLA among the factors of social capital, cultural capital and perception of society are as follows. A sense of loneliness in one’s family was positively related to upward social mobility (OR=1.44, p<.05). According to the theory of weak ties, family close relationships actually block various information that can be obtained through networks outside (Cote, 2019). The loneliness results are similar to research results showing that additional resources and information can be supplied to individuals through external networks rather than families and that individuals' SSM can be improved. Regarding cultural factors, the outcome where satisfaction with cultural facilities (OR=.54, p<.01) was negatively related to downward social mobility was similar to previous results (Aschaffenburg & Maas 1997; De Graaf 1986; DiMaggio 1982), but the opposite association was found for satisfaction with cultural programming (OR=2.39, p<.001). It is similar to the MRA result, this finding needs to be interpreted with caution. The analysis shows that community belongingness is negatively associated with both upward (OR=.48, p<.001) and downward mobility (OR=.68, p<.05).; this can assume that association is non-linear. Research on community belongingness suggests that belonging to a community can have opposite effects on class mobility perceptions depending on the context (Marzi, 2018). Conditions of different social contexts, as the sense of belonging deepens, the awareness of the immobility of social class increases (Marzi, 2018; Stephens, Markus, & Phillips, 2014). Social fairness is positively tied to upward mobility (OR=11.60, p<.001), and it supports previous research (Kim, 2020; Lee, 2017). This implies that social fairness closely relates to middle-aged working single mothers' SSM. In contrast, the positive attitude toward marginalized group policies was negatively associated with perceived downward mobility (OR=.56, p<.05). Semyonov et al. (2006) showed that negative attitudes toward socially disadvantaged individuals are linked to negative attitudes toward SSM, which in turn may explain the current findings. This suggests that improved recognition of socially marginalized group is necessary. Therefore, related factors differed depending on how SSM was perceived, indicating the need for social intervention.

The suggestions of the results are as follows. First, policy support is needed to make asset accumulation economically feasible for households. The residential environment and median income status are important variables associated with SSM, especially upward mobility. Savings incentives and housing subsidy programs are necessary to enhance social mobility. The current economic support program for single-parent households requires them to have an income below 100% of the median; furthermore, their children must be younger than 22 to be eligible for support (Seoul Single Parent Family Support Center, 2023). However, among the present study’s participants, only 13.8% were caring for children aged under 18, implying that most of them could not apply for economic support. Therefore, savings incentives should be introduced for middle-aged single mothers regardless of their children’s ages. Furthermore, current single-parent housing programs are only available for parents with infants or toddlers or those with at least 30% or more but less than 50% of the median income. There is a limit to what can be done to address the housing poverty of single parents in the “blind spot” of welfare. Hence, a housing benefits program to address these blind spots should be developed.

Second, health promotion policies are also necessary. Research has shown that subjective health status is closely tied to SSM. To prevent middle-aged single mothers from falling into health risk groups, a wellness program is necessary. Currently, the Seoul Single Parent Support Center provides psychological counseling services for mental health, but only for those raising children younger than 18 years and earning less than 100% of their median income (Seoul Single Parent Family Support Center, 2023). There is a lack of support for physical health and very limited eligibility for mental health support. Social service programs for improving the physical and mental health of middle-aged single parents are therefore required. In July 2023, the government announced the advancement of social service programming as part of a middle-aged health support program (Ministry of Health and Welfare, 2023). However, the main target group for the social service program is middle-aged single male households. A look at the current status of health service programs shows that there are few services for middle-aged single parents, and it is necessary to develop these.

Lastly, single mothers facing various difficulties should be supported to develop and maintain social relationships more than other households (Hornberger et al., 2010). Due to time constraints and financial difficulties, single mothers are unable to spend leisure time with their families or participate in cultural programming and it relates to the loneliness in one’s family (Cooney & Mortimer, 1999). Thus, they need community support and vouchers for cultural programs and psychological consulting programs that are tailored to their individual conditions and cultural needs/education/mental health in a broader sense (De Garza, 2004). Additionally, a positive social perception is an important factor in the positive prediction of future upward mobility. At present, the Seoul Single Parent Family Support Center provides peer mentoring services through the Life Support Coordinator. As this program is focused on parenting and is primarily guided by peers rather than professionals, it may not be appropriate for middle-aged single mothers. Hence, middle-aged single parents should have access to more specialized and tailored mentoring services that can assist them in navigating challenges.

This study has several limitations. Firstly, it is constrained by a lack of data concerning middle-aged single mothers, which restricts the breadth of its analysis. Specifically, the study only examines certain characteristics such as cultural capital, family wealth, and community resources. Regarding cultural factors, the findings regarding satisfaction with cultural programming differ from previous studies due to the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research should delve into various cultural capital factors, including frequency of use and quality. Secondly, family wealth is intricately linked to SSM, yet this study only considers factors such as home ownership, parental income, and median income status. However, different districts have different types/levels of real estate prices and also can provide different cultural facilities and programs. Future research needs to consider family wealth and living districts in detail. Furthermore, among perceptions of society factors, community belongingness showed a negative relationship with the perception of upward and downward subjective mobility. A more in-depth exploration of the results is necessary. Although this study focused on middle-aged single mothers, future research on this topic is required with regard to other generations and middle-aged single fathers as well as more in-depth research on mental health and social factors in sub-studies.

서경주는 연세대학교 사회복지대학원 박사과정생이다. 최근의 주요논문으로 “발달장애인을 형제로 둔 비장애 성인의 심리사회적 어려움에 관한 사례연구: 생애주기별 회고적 접근”(『한국지적장애교육학회』 Vol 25, 2, 2023) 등이 있다. 주요 관심분야는 발달장애, 비장애형제, 장애인복지전달체계, 근로빈곤 등이다.

(E-mail: mizseo@hanmail.net).

오유경은 연세대학교 사회복지대학원 박사과정생이다. 최근의 주요논문으로 “코로나 19 시대 노인요양시설의 보건·복지서비스 전달체계 업무 경험에 관한 연구: 코호트 격리를 중심으로”(『장기요양연구』 제11권, 1호. 2023) 등이 있다. 주요 관심분야는 복지사각지대, 근로빈곤, 장기요양시설, 프로그램 개발과 평가, 전달체계 등이다.

(E-mail: ohyu429@yonsei.ac.kr)

References

Alesina, A., & Angeletos, G. M. (2005). Fairness and redistribution. American economic review, 95(4), pp.960-980. DOI: 10.1257/0002828054825655

Aschaffenburg, K., & Maas, I. (1997). Cultural and educational careers: The dynamics of social reproduction. American sociological review, pp.573-587. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657427

Bae, H. R., & Shin, J. C. (2021). A Study on the Current Situation of Musical Performance in the COVID-19 Era and Its Direction. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 21(9), pp. 372-390.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bar-Haim, E. (2018). Still great: subjective intergenerational mobility and income inequality. Comparative Sociology, 17(5), pp.496-518.

Biblarz, T. J., & Raftery, A. E. (1993). The effects of family disruption on social mobility. American sociological review, pp.97-109.

Blanden, J., Gregg, P., & Macmillan, L. (2006). Accounting for Intergenerational Income Persistence: Non-Cognitive Skills. Ability and Education (London: Centre for Economic Performance). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02034.x

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (Vol. 4). Sage.

Bukodi Erzsébet, Paskov Marii, Nolan Brian. (2020). Intergenerational Class Mobility in Europe: A New Account. Social Forces, 98(3), pp.941–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz026

Chambaz, C. (2001). Lone-parent families in europe: A variety of economic and social circumstances. Social Policy and Administration, 35(6), pp.658–671. doi:10.1111/1467-9515.00259.

Cho, Kwon-Joong. (2021). The Discourse Surrounding ‘Fairness’ and the Fair City Index for Seoul.  The Seoul Institute. Retrieved from https://lib.seoul.go.kr:9091/ezpdfweb/ezpdf/customLayout.jsp?target=Y&encdata=7A43D0C4E655F7E00FF27627F2A562220FF27627F2A56222E806B9514FF26ACA4D10A9CFF9A1994D54A54452DD5B98F0D7E8E18328A361B3596E0854C7B9B71853F7EC38D90E8F1499BC227CB984D24EE18AC9EDD3D5690B2BC4B82511B67F37488607CAF9A6D5A901AAC9E739379125CF7E69D5CE1D0DB0BD3F095182F210DB5B00F5FD41B0997C

Choi, Ay-Young. (2022). The Effect of Youth’s Subjective Class Perception and Class Mobility on Life Satisfaction: Verification of the Mediating Effect of Social Participation. Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs. 42(4), pp.326-346. DOI : 10.15709/hswr.2022.42.4.326

Choi, J. H., &　Son, S. H. (2022). Predictors of the Subjective Well-Being of Middle-Aged Single Mothers. Journal of Family Resource Management and Policy Review, 26(2), pp.85-94.

Choi, S. M., Choi, J. S., & Oh, Y. K. (2022). The roles and tasks for the public and private emergency support programs: Based on the analysis of the contents and current status of the public and private sectors. Korean Journal of Social Welfare Research, 73, pp. 123-153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17997/SWRY.73.1.5

Colton, T., Janzen, B., & Laverty, W. (2015). Family structure, social capital, and mental health disparities among Canadian mothers. Public health, 129(6), pp.639-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.03.023

Cooney, T. M., & Mortimer, J. T. (1999). Family structure differences in the timing of leaving home: Exploring mediating factors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9(4), pp.367-393.

Cote, R. (2019). The Evolution of Social Network Theory: Perceived Impact on Developing Networking Relationships. American Journal of Management, 19

De Garza, M. L. (2004). HOW DOES CULTURE AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT HELP WITH COPING AMONG MEXICAN-AMERICAN SINGLE MOTHERS? (Doctoral dissertation). UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA.

De Graaf, P. M. (1986). The impact of financial and cultural resources on educational attainment in the Netherlands. Sociology of education, pp.237-246.

Den Berg, M. V. (2011). Subjective social mobility: definitions and expectations of ‘moving up’ of poor Moroccan women in the Netherlands. Int. Sociol, 26, pp.503–523. doi: 10.1177/0268580910393042

DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture participation on the grades of US high school students. American sociological review, pp.189-201. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094962

Edmiston, D. (2018). The poor “sociological imagination” of the rich: Explaining attitudinal divergence towards welfare, inequality, and redistribution. Social Policy & Administration, 52(5), pp.983-997. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12366

Erikson, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (2002). Intergenerational inequality: A sociological perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), pp.31-44.

Fingerman, K. L., Kim, K., Davis, E. M., Furstenberg Jr, F. F., Birditt, K. S., & Zarit, S. H. (2015). “I'll give you the world”: Socioeconomic differences in parental support of adult children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(4), pp.844-865.

Fischer, J. A. V. (2009). The Welfare Effects of Social Mobility: An Analysis for OECD Counties. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46446966_The_Welfare_Effects_of_Social_Mobility_An_Analysis_for_OECD_countries?enrichId=rgreq-0f61cac1422593e9c810ac37be95a637-XXX&enrich Source = Y292ZXJQYWdlOzQ2NDQ2OTY2O0FTOjEwMzkxNzk4NzgyNzcx

Gingerbread. (2015). Paying the price: The impact of the summer budget on single parent families. Retrieved from https://gingerbread.org.uk/file_download.aspx?id=9519 Gingerbread.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American journal of sociology, 91(3), pp.481-510.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 78(6), pp.1360-1380.

Gregg, P., Macmillan, L., & Vittori, C. (2015). Nonlinear estimation of lifetime intergenerational economic mobility and the role of education. Department of Quantitative Social Science Working Paper, pp.15-03.

Hammer, E., Baumeister, R., & Vohs, K. (2007). Scapegoat theory. Encyclopedia of social psychology, Sage publications, Los Angeles, CA.

Haveman, R., & Smeeding, T. (2006). The role of higher education in social mobility. The Future of children, pp.125-150.

Hornberger, L. B., Zabriskie, R. B., & Freeman, P. (2010). Contributions of family leisure to family functioning among single-parent families. Leisure Sciences, 32(2), pp.143-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400903547153

Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (2022). Class awareness in the United States. Univ of California Press.

Jeong M. E., Kim M. H., Jang Y. S., (2014). The Relations between Happiness and Social Capital of Seoul. Studies on City of Seoul, 15-1, pp.163-186

Jo. Dong-Gi. (2006). Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Subjective Class Identification of 'Middle class'. Korea journal of population studies, 29(3), pp.89-109

Kalmijn, M. (2023). Parents' socioeconomic status and support to adult children across the life course. Journal of Marriage and Family.

Kang, S., Lee, Y., & Koo, J. H. (2023). Spatially neighborhood and socially non-neighborhood: Illustrating social capital perception of neighbors around the apartment complex. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 22(3), pp.1284-1299.

Kelley, S. M., & Kelley, C. G. (2009). Subjective Social Mobility: data from thirty nations. In The international social survey programme 1984-2009, pp.106-124. Routledge.

Kim, Byeong-Jo. (2000). Subjective Class Identification in Korea: Characteristics and Determinants. Korean Journal of Sociology, 34, pp.241-268.

Kim, Na-Yeon. (2020). The Impact of Citizens’ Perception of Social Justice on the Subjective Social Mobility: Using 2018 Seoul Survey. Social Science Review, 51(1), pp.1-27.

Kim, T. W., et al., (2022). A Study on the Diagnosis of Korean Social Polarization and Response to Social Policy. Korea Institute of Health and Social Affairs. https://doi.org/10.23060/KIHASA.A.2022.21

Kim, Yu-Kyung. (2019). The Double Care Burden and Policy Implications for Middle-aged and Older Heads. In Health and Welfare Policy Forum, 271, pp.74-92.

Kong, K. A., Choi, H. Y., & Kim, S. I. (2017). Mental health among single and partnered parents in South Korea. PloS one, 12(8), e0182943. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182943

Lamont Michele, & Annette Lareau. (1988). Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps, and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments. Sociological Theory, 6, pp.153-168.

Lee, B. H., & Yoon, J. H., (2006). The Change of Social Status Consciousness. Economy and Society, pp.111-140.

Lee, H. J., Jang, S. J., Kim. B. I., & Baek, K. H. (2021). Gender Gap and Influencing Factors for Single-parent Families Poverty Risk. Journal of Social Welfare Policy, 48(2), pp.103-129.

Lee, Jong-Hee. (2017). Subjective Class Identification of the Middle-Class Koreans. Korean Consumption Culture Association, 20(2), pp.1-22.

Lee, K. Y., & Jeong, M. G. (2021). Residential environmental satisfaction, social capital, and place attachment: The case of Seoul, Korea. Journal of housing and the built environment, 36, pp.559-575.

Lee, W, Kim, M, & Choi, Y. (2016). Changes in Class Attribution and Upward Mobility in Korean Society. Korean Journal of Sociology, 50(5), pp.247-284.

Lee, Yong-Kwan. (2018). Changes in Influence Factors on Subjective Class Identification and Class Mobility Possibility of the Youth. Health and Social Welfare Review, 38(4), pp.465-491.

Lenette, C., & Ingamells, A. (2015). Mind the Gap! The growing chasm between funding-driven agencies, and social and community knowledge and practice. Community Development Journal, 50(1), 88-103.

Liang, L. A., Berger, U., & Brand, C. (2019). Psychosocial factors associated with symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress among single mothers with young children: A population-based study. Journal of affective disorders, 242, pp.255-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.013

Lin, N. (2017). Building a network theory of social capital. Social capital, pp.3-28.

Litwin, H. and Shiovitz-ezra, S. (2010). Social network type and subjective well-being in a national sample of older Americans, The Gerontologist, 51, 3, pp.379–88.

Liu, W., Sidhu, A., Beacom, A. M., & Valente, T. W. (2017). Social network theory. The international encyclopedia of media effects, pp.1-12.

Macleod, J., Smith, G. D., Metcalfe, C., & Hart, C. (2005). Is subjective social status a more important determinant of health than objective social status? Evidence from a prospective observational study of Scottish men. Social science & medicine, 61(9), pp.1916-1929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.009

Margo, J., Dixon, M., Pearce, N., & Reed, H. (2006). Freedom’s orphans. Institute for Public Policy Research.

Marzi, S. (2018). ‘We are labeled as gang members, even though we are not’: belonging, aspirations and social mobility in Cartagena. Development Studies Research, 5(1), pp.15-25.

Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2015). A Study on the Status of Sole-Parent Families

Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2018). A Study on the Status of Sole-Parent Families

Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2021). A Study on the Status of Sole-Parent Families

Ministry of Health and Welfare. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.mohw.go.kr/react/al/sal0301vw.jsp?PAR_MENU_ID=04&MENU_ID=0403&CONT_SEQ=377058&page=1

Nunn, A., Johnson, S., Monro, S., Bickerstaffe, T., & Kelsey, S. (2007). Factors influencing social mobility. Technical Report. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

OECD. (2023). Understanding social mobility. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/stories/social-mobility/

Page-Adams, D., & Sherraden, M. (1997). Asset building as a community revitalization strategy. Social work, 42(5), pp.423-434.

Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American sociological review, pp.673-693.

Präg, P., & Gugushvili, A. (2021). Subjective social mobility and health in Germany. European Societies, 23(4), pp.464-486.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2021.1887916

Roh, Young-Hee, Kim, Sang In. (2016). Influences of Socio-Demographics, Child Parenting Hardships and Social Support on Single Parents’Mental Health. Family and Family Therapy, 24(2), pp.167-185. DOI : 10.46330/jkps.2019.06.19.2.49

Roscigno, V. J., & Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W. (1999). Race, Cultural Capital, and Educational Resources: Persistent Inequalities and Achievement Returns. Sociology of Education, 72(3), pp.158–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673227

Scanlon, E., & Page Adams, D. (2001). Effects of Asset Holding on Neighborhoods, Families and Children: A Review of Research. Building Assets: A Report on the Asset Development and IDA Fields, pp.25-49.

Schalembier, B. (2015). Measuring perceived income inequality: an evaluation of different methods. In Statistics and Demography: the Legacy of Corrado Gini. Retrieved from ttp://meetings.sis-statistica.org/index.php/Ginilegacy/SIS2015/paper/view/3415/725

Scherger, S., & Savage, M. (2010). Cultural transmission, educational attainment and social mobility. The sociological review, 58(3), pp.406-428.

Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., & Gorodzeisky, A. (2006). The rise of anti-foreigner sentiment in European societies, 1988-2000. American sociological review, 71(3), pp.426-449.

Seoul Single Parent Family Support Center (SSPFSC). (2023). Retrieved from  https://www.seoulhanbumo.or.kr/han/contents/han-reinforceCapa.do

Shin, J. E., Han, H., Park, E., Seo, J. G., & Choi, H. S. (2023). Perceived Environmental Safety Buffers the Adverse Effect of Loneliness on The Subjective Well-Being of Urban Residents.

Shin, Kwang-Yeong. (2016). Inequality and gap within the middle aged Koreans. SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 47(2), pp.53-74.

Shnabel, N., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cook, J. E., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Demystifying values-affirmation interventions: Writing about social belonging is a key to buffering against identity threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), pp.663-676.

Song, H., Lee, M., & Choi, S. (2013). What Causes Gap between Objective Class Position and Subjective Class Identification in Korea Society?. Korea journal of population studies, 36(3), pp.97-119.

Song, X., Massey, C. G., Rolf, K. A., Ferrie, J. P., Rothbaum, J. L., & Xie, Y. (2020). Long-term decline in intergenerational mobility in the United States since the 1850s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(1), pp.251-258. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905094116

Song. D. Y., Kim. M. J., Choi. H. K., & Jang. S. J. (2019). A New Theory of Women's Welfare, Paju:Yangseowon.

Statistics Korea. (2021). 2021. the Households Finance and Welfare Survey Results.

Statistics Korea. (2021). Middle-aged administrative Satistics.

Statistics Korea. (2021). Population Census. https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1SP1601&vw_cd=MT_ZTITLE&list_id=A12_2015_1_10_40&scrId=&seqNo=&lang_mode=ko&obj_var_id=&itm_id=&conn_path=MT_ZTITLE&path=%252FstatisticsList%252FstatisticsListIndex.do

Statistics Korea. (2022). Population Census: Single-parent households by household gender and child age by state. Retrieved from https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1SP1601&vw_cd=MT_ZTITLE&list_id=A12_2015_1_10_40&scrId=&seqNo=&lang_mode=ko&obj_var_id=&itm_id=&conn_path=MT_ZTITLE&path=%252FstatisticsList%252FstatisticsListIndex.do

Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, L. T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual review of psychology, 65, pp.611-634.

Tach, L. (2015). Social mobility in an era of family instability and complexity. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 657(1), pp.83-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214547854

Tiffin, P., Pearce, M., & Parker, L. (2005). Social mobility over the lifecourse and self reported mental health at age 50: prospective cohort study. Journal of epidemiology and community health, 59(10), pp.870. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.035246

Veenhoven, R. (2002). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Social indicators research, 58, pp.33-46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015723614574

Weitoft, G. R., Hjern, A., & Rosén, M. (2004). School's out! Why earlier among children of lone parents?. International Journal of Social Welfare, 13(2), pp.134-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-6866.2004.00307.

Widmer, E. D., Kempf-Constantin, N., Robert-Tissot, C., Lanzi, F., & Carminati, G. G. (2008). How central and connected am I in my family?: Family-based social capital of individuals with intellectual disability. Research in developmental disabilities, 29(2), pp.176-187.

Willitts, M., Benzeval, M., & Stansfeld, S. (2004). Partnership history and mental health overtime. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 58(1), pp.53-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.58.1.53

Yoon, I. J., & Kim, S. D. (2008). The impact of socioeconomic status and subjective class identification on life satisfaction: With a focus on mediating effects of high-class leisure activity. Journal of the Korean Urban Management Association, 21(2), pp.153-185.

Yu, G. B., & Kim, N. (2021). The effects of leisure life satisfaction on subjective wellbeing under the COVID-19 pandemic: the mediating role of stress relief. Sustainability, 13(23), 13225.

Zhang, L., & Wu, L. (2021). Community environment perception on depression: The mediating role of subjective social class. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15), 8083.  DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158083

중장년기 근로 여성 한부모의 계층이동가능성 인식에 대한 영향요인

서경주 ․ 오유경

연세대학교 사회복지대학원 박사과정

[국문요약]

본 연구의 목적은 경제적인 문제, 자녀부양, 미래 노후 준비에 어려움을 겪고 있는 중장년기(40-64세) 근로 여성 한부모의 계층이동가능성 인식에 대한 영향요인을 탐색하는 데 있다. 본 연구는 중년 근로 여성 한부모의 계층이동 가능성 인식과 관련된 요인을 파악하기 위해 ‘2022 서울서베이' 응답자 중 연구목적에 해당하는 539가구를 분석대상으로 하였다. 본 연구는 SPSS 26.0을 사용하여 다중 회귀분석과 다항로지스틱 회귀분석을 활용하여 연구모형을 검증하였다. 다중회귀분석 결과, 연령(β=-.10, p<.05), 주관적 건강상태(β=.18, p<.001), 주거 만족도(β=.17, p<.001), 가족관계 외로움(β=.12, p<.01), 문화시설 만족도(β=.16, p<.01), 문화프로그램 만족도(β=-.24, p<.001), 사회공정성인식(β=.23, p<.001)이 계층이동가능성 인식에 유의하게 관련되어 있었다. 그다음 다항로지스틱 회귀분석을 통하여 상향계층이동과 하향계층이동의 설명요인을 비교분석한 결과, 주관적 건강상태(OR=1.38, p<.05), 화이트칼라 직업군일 경우 (OR=.15, p<.05), 주거 만족도(OR=2.12, p<.05), 중위소득 수준(OR=.42, p<.05), 가족관계 외로움(OR=1.44, p<.05), 지역사회소속감(OR=.48, p<.001), 사회공정성인식(OR=11.60, p<.001)은 상향계층이동인식과 유의하게 관련되어 있었다. 다음으로 주관적 건강상태(OR=.82, p<.05), 문화시설만족도(OR=.54, p<.01), 문화프로그램 만족도(OR=2.39, p<.001), 지역사회소속감(OR=.68, p<.05), 사회적 약자를 위한 정책에 대한 태도(OR=.56, p<.05)은 하향계층이동인식과 유의한 관계가 있었다. 이를 바탕으로 본 연구는 중장년 한부모 여성들의 계층이동가능성 인식을 개선하기 위하여 사회 복지 정책을 제언하였다.

주제어: 한부모 여성, 중장년 여성, 주관적 계층이동, 계층이동가능성 인식, 서울서베이